Societal Perspective

 I thought I would write up some thoughts I've been having lately about society. *eye roll* another one of those posts...

Sorry if this sounds edgy:

I think American society is on a brink right now, we just haven't realized it yet. And honestly, it needs to happen. 

But hopefully it will happen in the best way possible and not the worst, because there are a lot of avenues to a bad outcome and only a few to a good one.

Sounds cryptic? 

America has become a land of capitalism solely. Our democracy (democratic republic if you will) is neither a democracy nor a republic. The wealthy control so much in government and they compete with one another for more power. The only saving grace for commercial take-over is the complexity of the system. Yes, the checks and balances work some of the time, but they are more of a check dam before the actual dam, and right now the waters of greedy capitalism are inundating politik. 

It really does stem from capitalism. I appreciate capitalism, but I think the scale has tipped too far in favor of the capitalist. People perceive money as life. At all levels. All races, all classes, all categories of people see money as the definition of life. This is not the truth, but rather it is a construct that has been implanted into our minds. It is an idea that has tainted our happiness. People perceive money to be the measure of a person's life. Wealth is all that people can talk about. But capitalism is more than money, it's about "capitalizing" which appears to be an extension of imperialism. It is the control over the production capabilities and domination. 

People seem to think that capitalism is solely about money, but in fact, when capitalists have capitalized in their field they always expand--expansion is in fact an aspect of capitalism, though they call it "diversifying". 

So lets define capitalism: Capitalism is the investment of resources in order to get a return on those resources. Currency is the exchange unit, though it isn't a universal unit because it varies regionally and across time. Energy is a more universal unit of exchange between mediums, but capitalists haven't quite figured out how to capitalize on it in a stable way or I'm sure they would use that instead.

The people, or inheritors of those people, who made daring investments a long time ago have gained the returns on those investments which has provided them with a sufficient pool of this exchange medium (currency). With currency they are able to expend those resources on whatever they want, though as they continue to be capitalists, they invest more in order to gain more, and when they have tapped as much as they can from one source they diversify to another source or another industry. And they don't stop and they assign heirs to do the job after they are gone. 

Some capitalists are corporations--or rather an organization or group of people who are all capitalists and who share in the wealth gains of the corporation, but don't share any responsibility for their capitalist decisions. If something goes great, they get praise and financial benefits and greater decision making latitude. If it goes wrong, they don't lose out financially, they don't have to personally pay any fines and worst case scenario they get fired from their position as CEO or COO or CTO or whatever executive position they held. After getting fired, they get poached onto some other board, or if they were a good capitalist they were diversified and are already sitting on other boards which tehy retain their position in. 

The American government was once founded on a different kind of ideals. There were certain human principles incorporated into the minutia of the government, but over time, capitalists realized they could even capitalize on government. They've infiltrated the election process and now it is the richest candidates who win elections. Those who invest the most money into the greatest returns and actualize those returns are the winners of government power. 

*phew*. 

This is hard for me to speak about because I understand what is occurring in a non-language. I will need to keep both a dictionary and an encyclopedia handy if I'm to even communicate this. 

Tangent: I used to believe that you could only think about and understand what you could communicate, but I think that is only true to an extent. I think our brains are fantastic and that they have a way of understanding things that they've maybe only once seen or heard and can form connections that our conscious minds didn't realize were even connected. Call it intuition, call it the subconscious, but it's really just the connection making ability of the brain.

Back to my opening statements:

I think American society is on a brink. Financially, the markets don't seem right: if businesses are supposedly struggling to hire people, yet unemployment is low, yet businesses are still operating as normal and those businesses that are up and running are making profits, right? Then is there really a problem? And yet, people are supposedly not working? Who is paying the bills? Who is earning money to pay bills? Are people offloading their savings? I Thought they didn't have savings? See. None of that makes sense. Socially, people are still distraught. Covid is still impacting our lives and the threat is still out there. People are still refusing to get vaccinated. Things have calmed down, but I don't think they are really calm. Inflation is setting in. And it almost seems like we are sitting in the eye of the storm beliving that everything will end up alright when it's only just begun. It seems something's got to give? 

A flawed system

I keep listening to this song and I think it has a huge effect on me. It's pretty heavy.

Life's pretty lame; but it doesn't have to be.



I've seen how beautiful life can be. I've touch those magnificent moments, I could smell them and taste them and bask in them--that's how real it is for me.
But I've also seen the idiotic mess that we've made of life. We humans have thwarted our own best chances. Instead of conceding to being happy, we put ourselves into an agitated state 24/7 and we dangle the golden carrot in front of our own eyes. Then we deny ourselves from ever reaching it.
And the interesting thing about all of this is that every human being does this.



Me, I'm trying to get back to the root of all life. That quest, it would seem, is my golden carrot. And as I work for it, I see these very complex obstacles that are stopping me. I see the bureaucratic system holding me back from this end goal. That system is starting to disgust me, and the more it disgusts me the more I want that carrot and the more I'm pushing for alternative routes to that goal. It's a perpetual cycle of me wanting this thing I can't have and not being happy right now because I'm too disgusted by the world around me; yet that disgust is what keeps me going as if maybe the thing I'm disgusted by is really what I'm living for.

*shiver*



To further my point, I'm going to share an out-there example that I think illuminates this predicament: People who vocally hate drama tend to be the ones whose lives are full of drama and more often than not are the ones who are starting drama. They'll point fingers at other people and try to blame them for causing drama in their life, yet the act of pointing fingers is what perpetuates the drama. It is as if the thing they hate the most is really themselves.

I feel a lot of sympathy for everyone right now. People who want love more than anything yet they struggle with loving others--People who live in fear of an anxious and tense situation, yet it is their tension that is triggering that very anxiety and fear.--People who struggle every day with their addictions and want to quit but they see themselves as weak and pathetic and only because they can't overcome their addictions.

Its sad you guys.

I'm not okay with this; and I think I've been going about this the wrong way by thinking "we" need to do something about this; because really "I" need to do something about this.

3 Pop Songs that Prove Society Still Has Things To Learn

Three pop songs that prove society still has things to learn:
1. http://youtu.be/iD2rhdFRehU
2. http://youtu.be/yw04QD1LaB0
3. http://youtu.be/nCkpzqqog4k


This article was prompted by the thought I had driving to work today: "If an Alien Civilization(AC) were to hear the things we broadcast, what would they think?" --And on the radio I heard these three songs back to back:

Ed Sheran - Don't
Nick Jonas - Jealous
Sam Smith -Not the Only One


It occurred to me that perhaps an AC would hear them and think all we care about is whether our mates are only mating with us or not. --Probably, this AC would think we were foolish because increased mating opportunities brings out quicker evolution, but that's not the point I want to make here.

The point I want to make is that we have a bizarre social belief that goes like this:

If I agree to single out a "mate" (for lack of a better word) then I have to accept the handful of good traits that they have along with all of their bad traits. [but it doesn't end here] Not only that, but I can't accept the good traits of others.

To help wrap your head around this, here is a fictitious example:

MC - We'll call her Mary
Candidate A - Joseph
Candidate B - Gilgamesh


So Mary like that Joseph is a nice, wealthy guy and can provide her with a home, clothes, and he'll be nice, won't beat her, and will protect her.
Joseph likes that Mary is a sweet girl, plus it's cool to have this attractive girl go around the village with him.
Unfortunately, Joseph is lacking in the sexual department. He also doesn't listen to mary very well and he doesn't support her in the things she wants to improve and succeed in. It's very frustrating for her, so she seeks elsewhere for someone who will listen to her.
Along the way, because this is natural for humans to do, she meets Gilgamesh who is a great listener. She is attracted to him and soon learns that he isn't lacking in the sexual department.
Mary likes that Joseph is nice and wealthy--and Gilgamesh is not wealthy, but great in bed and a good listener.
Mary doesn't have sex with Joseph anymore. She still attends village events with him, she still takes care of the house so that Joseph can work in his business of making houses. She is very much publicly his girl.

So the question is posed: Who should Mary be with? Joseph is happy as a carpenter with a beautiful, sweet wife. Gilgamesh is happy as a traveler, with a passionate lover.

The cheap, sleazy answer is: she should be with the one that she loves most--the one her heart tells her to be with.

But I hate that answer because it is about like saying: which should I choose? Choose the one that you choose. --There is no criteria in that answer to determine which is "better" and what decision to make.

And honestly. She should choose both. She gets good sex and passion in her life + she gets wealth and security.

The ONLY problem with this is jealousy. Joseph is FINE just living the life he perceives--the one where his wife goes to village events and he works as a carpenter. But when he finds out about gilgamesh he busts a blood vessel. Why is it such a problem to him? Nothing has changed! absolutely nothing has changed. He can still focus on his work. He can still have the love of Mary. --the only thing that changed was his perception...

To add a kink to my scenario, let's say Mary and Gilgamesh have a son. Woops! Baby Jessie is born.
By social right, Joseph is obligated to take care of Jessie. But by the laws of nature, Mary and Gilgamesh are his parents.
However...when you marry someone, you agree to raise their kids. --In today's society if you marry someone with kids, you have to accomodate those kids--the kids don't just get dumped off, they don't live in another house, and there is no realistic way around it.

So what do you do?
Do you say:
1) Legally, the child is Mary and Josephs
2) Naturally, the child is Mary and Gilgamesh's
3) Obviously it's all Mary's FAULT
4) Or do you reframe reality and realize that NOTHING changed. The child, in many ways is all 3 of theirs.




People focus too much on fault. Fault doesn't accomplish anything other than make people feel justified in their emotions. It justifies anger. It justifies hatred, greed, jealousy, and a slew of other negative emotions. It doesn't solve problems though it only creates them--as we are learning by the function of terrorist organizations: they are created out of hatred and they create terror in the name of hatred, lust of power, and anger rather than love and peace.

Legally--our social system is messed up. Laws should work for the people not the people for the laws. This scenario defies the way we currently think about the laws and I propose we change the laws to reflect real life better. Legally, JOSEPH should take care of Jessie as a son--that is the agreement he made by marrying Mary. It is not fair, but it is as much a decision he made as it is a decision that Gilgamesh made by having sex. --there is always the possibility that a child will enter into the mix.

Option 2 is a moderate argument... it is the truth. But should Mary and Joseph end their relationship because of it? Should Mary and Joseph divorce and should Gilgamesh be forced to take care of the child he can't support? --MANY people say they should. But why? Why throw a child into a scenario that it worse? It would be better to lie and say Joseph was the father than to force the child to have a father that doesn't want him and a mother who can't support him on her own.


Stupid. Utterly stupid.

Instead of creating a black and white world, we should be using all of the colors. Gilgamesh is the genetic father--there is nothing wrong with a child knowing that. Joseph is their Legal father--there is nothing wrong with a child knowing that. Mary, regardless, is Jessie's mother, but if they put the child up for adoption then someone else will assume legal parentship.




Society is much more advanced than 30BC, but we live as though the same rules apply--and worse, we pick and choose which rules we follow--rather than take care of the kid, as is our legal obligation, we divorce the mother, break up with the girlfriend who has sex with anyone without us.
My Gawwwd! these songs sound like little boys who can't handle competition so they whine and bitch about it.

Thank you for nothing. Time to Adapt.

I'm a fan of flying by the seat of your pants--if you know what you're doing--but Americans have really messed up the last couple of generations. First and foremost, people are taught that monogamous, heterosexual, marriage is the only respectable relationship option in society. Second, we've distorted reality to the point that people think that all of their fantasy dreams are going to happen. Third, we tell people what to think and do, more than we let people think for themselves because we're afraid of what would happen if people thought for themselves.
The debate is out, and society is changing to be more accepting of the LGBT community, but I don't think we should end there (when it does get there). There is no word in the English language that is an antenym for Monogomy:

Antonyms for monogamy

• badness
• corruption

• disgrace
• dishonesty

• dishonor
• evil

• immorality
• wildness

• dirtiness
• fornication

Why is that? And why are there still laws in society against anything other than monogamy (most are not enforced...until a divorce begins)?
Statistically, more Single Mothers are in the bottom tier of society as far as the economy is concerned, and maybe even if you compared on some scale of stress you might find them on the bottom tier as well. But why? Single dad's aren't found down there?
I hope that question worked to lead you into what I'm going to say next: If your initial answer that question was "well, because single fathers don't have to take care of the kids"--Okay...why? Why don't more single dad's have primary responsibility to take care of the kids?--If you follow cultural trends, you'll realize that this is rapidly changing: more single dads ARE taking care of kids as primary caregiver. Are these single dads found in the bottom tier? --not as far as any statisticians are concerned.
Why do our tax systems support marriage? It is more costly to live alone than to have two working adults living together. And even if one of them isn't working, that person still boosts the household gross production by taking care of the home. There is only so much one person can do alone, but together we are powerful. Why does the U.S. give tax breaks to married couples? Does having a polygamous relationship make you more disobedient to the laws (aside from the anti-polygamy laws)? What about a poly-amorous relationship? Do these relationships make you less of a contributor to society?
We raise our kids to believe that if they don't want to, or don't ever, marry there is something wrong with them. That somehow everyone is expected to pair off, have kids, and then give their wealth to their kids.

Another thing we do is teach kids that they can do whatever they want with their life and be whatever they want to be. --That's cool, don't get me wrong, it's good to dream, but it's also good to be realistic and teach kids to be realistic. Years ago, the whole world operated on the order of apprenticeships, then we realized that the world was a lot bigger than we thought and so we started believing in the dream that you could be whatever you wanted to be. We started training people to be generic so that they could fit into many different positions--but we didn't change our beliefs. Our training is geared to teaching kids to be skilled in many ways and not necessarily specialized. Specialization comes when you're older...which...is probably closer to 45-65 than 35-45 as it was a few generations ago. And with the life expectancy rising...that may mean that that age will only continue to rise as people work more and more years.
The point is, mankind is maxing out on some of its resources. --That's not to say that they can't be replenished, or that we aren't sitting out proverbial oil fields in our backyards--it means that we can't sustain our rate of consumption until further breakthroughs are made. What is the job market like right now? What are the prices of oil doing? Where are the polar ice caps? --These are signs that we're starting to breach that point--or perhaps we've already breached it?
We have too many people living in too tight of spaces. We have run out of land to give away for free, which, up until the end of American Imperialism, Land was the real source of power for America--it attracted people which were the driving force of the world. Now, immigration is centered more around where the wealth is than it is about where the land is--and where does their money go? Back to their home countries to where they have an investment in land. But this isn't sustainable! --We have people living 10 people in a 2 bedroom home because they can't afford or don't want to pay for living expenses in their work country.--not legally anyway.
When you have kids, you need to be responsible for creating space for them in this world. Your kids are going to make an impact on the world after you're gone--every one that you bring into the world someone else has to exit the world. One day you will die and the person you mate with will too, but how many more people can you count on to die to leave room for your additional kids?

Lastly, Why do we tell people what to do, what do think? Why don't we teach people to ask questions and think for themselves? Our public education teaches people what is universally true, rather than how to think for themselves. Several important fields have been removed from our schools, such as mandatory courses on Rhetoric and Philosophy and instead we teach people how to optionally "debate." We keep telling people that one day some genius is going to come along and invent something new to save us all, but doesn't it seem that only an outlier, a maverick, could be that genius? Those people are rare. No one teaches you the skills to think outside of the box and we're slowly losing those individuals.
Our schools, our religions, our cultures--they create sheep, they breed followers. And sheep can't protect themselves from wolves, from mavericks. We are setting kids up to submit to ANYONE who can come along and solve our problems rather than setting our kids up to solve problems for themselves. We don't need sheep, we need men and women. Real men and women. Who are open to whatever life throws at them, who are confident and comfortable to stand up and voice their opinion and recognize that it is only an opinion and subject to change the moment something better comes along.

So thank you.

Thank you for nothing.

Because we have nothing left to lose.

Those of us who want to change and improve.
We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
So to those who believe in the powers that be,
We who are different will surpass you some day,
and you'll lose everything,
because you've gambled everything on your fantasy life:
one where you believe only certain ways of life are respectable
where you preach the ideal and never mention the realistic
Where you keep repeating the same old patterns and never adapt to the new world.

This is survival of the fittest
 

Bill Nye vs Ken Ham --What the evolution debate is REALLY about!

Everyone who grew up in the 90s loves Bill Nye, and those who are interested in Christianity and Creationism will love this debate. I watched it and tried to be as objective as possible to determine what the debate was really about.


To save you 2:45 hrs of your life, let me just explain this debate and if you want to watch it after with my enlightenment, please do so.


Ken Ham's Argument:

We should only teach the science that we know is Truth in schools.

Definitions:
Observational Science - Science that derives truth from what we can observe in the present and recreate through experiments.

Historical Science - Science that derives assumptions of the past based on the present **Which Ham emphasizes the word Assumption, because it isn't 100% provable.

Creationism - (His definition is broad, so I'm going to take the liberty of explaining what I believe is pertinent to this debate) The theory that there were around 2,000 kinds and from those kinds all other animals have evolved. I.e. Finches evolved from the bird kind, parrots evolved from the bird kind, etc.

Kind - A species of animal, such as a dog, cat, mouse, lion, bird, man, etc.

Truth - (again, his definition is broad) Anything observable and/or repeatable--OR anything God has spoken in the Bible. [he tacked that one on]

Additional claims:
Ham claims evolutionists are "hijacking" the definitions of "evolution" to include observational science (finches change generationally) AND historical science (finches spawned from a single celled organism a long time ago).


Bill Nye's Argument:

We should allow teachers to teach students the scientific process, regardless of whether what they say is true or false, the emphasis is on the process and it is an exciting thing.

Bill Nye doesn't necessarily claim evolutionists are 100% right or wrong, but he claims students should be taught about everything and all the facts and possible facts should be presented to them as well as the tools to determine if it is true or false.

Definitions:
Nye doesn't directly present definitions, his argument is straightforward in this regard however, to present his argument he presented a lot of other (in my opinion) "off topic" points that debunk some of what Ham was claiming. I have however included a few useful definitions

Evolving - Taking one species and making it more complex for some purpose.

Science - The process of discovery.

Additional claims:
Science is about the process of discovery, not the truth itself.

Nye argues that the job of a scientist is to prove theories right or wrong and that a scientist can stand on either side of the debate so long as they bring Evidence forward about it. If they can't bring evidence forward then they aren't doing science, they are making claims without founding. So...he presented a few claims and provided evidence for them, (here is one of many:) such as the layers of different rocks found in the grand canyon and the fossils found in those areas how they become more and more complex. He even challenged scientists to find just 1 species from a lower layer that is found in an upper layer because if they could do that it would be ground breaking and disprove what we understand about evolutionary science--as of yet no one has.

Nye Argues that we need to encourage the younger generation to ask questions and seek answers via science in order to solve the problems of the future and keep America economically strong because otherwise other countries will do so and surpass america.
--Along with that, he argues that if we limit what students can be taught down to just the truth, we will stifle curiosity and limit the act of science (the process of discovery).  [the assumption is, that if students are taught that one way is the truth and only the truth, then they will not bother researching other things outside that scope--and also, if that truth is false, no one will question it]



Some things to realize:

Private schools are increasing in enrollment, and private schools aren't limited to just creationism or just evolution. The debate is limited to public education.

This may have just been a publicity stunt on Ham's part to promote his museum and books.

Nye is a public education figure and mechanical engineer (scientist).
Ham has a degree related to education curriculum design (museum curator).

Nye is American, Ham is Australian.
Nye is Agnostic, Ham is Christian.


My opinion:

Ham was the better debater of the two--Nye wasn't as organized and not as focused on his actual argument but instead focused on the points of his argument rather than the argument as a whole. Ham came across well practiced.


I have to come out now and say that I side with Bill Nye. Nye's argument is non-judgmental of the truth. Under Nye's argument you can believe whatever you want as long as you back it up with proof whereas Ham's argument supposes that there are certain things that we shouldn't believe or argue about. If Nye is correct in his assumption, we already stifle our creativity and critical thinking by refusing to investigate the truth for ourselves.

I think public education should teach all viewpoints, all theories, and the pluses and minuses of those theories--even silly things that people once believed but no longer do (like the greek humors) because understanding the flaws in that way of thinking gives you a better idea of how to determine truth in the present times.
The important thing that public education should teach is how to come to the truth on your own. We live in the information age--we can look up any information we want, but if we don't know how to interpret that information for ourselvse and figure out how it applies to us, or we don't know how to determine if it is correct or incorrect, then what good does it do for us to know the said "truth?" Schools focus too much on memory regurgitation and not enough on independent thinking. Memory regurgitation was useful when our economy was more industrial and there were strict procedures for doing everything in our economy, but now that things have changed we need to focus on how to think for ourselves, how to come up with good ideas and solve problems, and to determine truth from untruth and how to objectively analyze things and to change our opinions if we are proven wrong.

Modern Marriage: Part 2

Go ahead, Read Part 1 First.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ PART 2: THE MODERN MARRIAGE \\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Modern Marriage is the most cutting edge form of marriage. It is the latest and greatest, the best, and it has the least flaws in it because some of the bugs have been worked out through the years of evolution. In a word, think: exceptional. 

People have a lot of expectations of what they will get when they get married--thousands even. I've simplified those reasons into 7 things that modern marriage offers. 

1. Synergy - One person plus another person doesn't equal two people, it equals more than that. Somehow, two people working together make them more efficient and more work is accomplished. Raising a kid alone is daunting, but rasing a kid with two is...less daunting. 

2. Mental and Emotional Stability - Whose shoulder do you cry on, or would you like to cry on more, your spouse or anybody else? If your relationship is good, then your spouse. Your spouse potentially knows you better and can relate to you better and understand you better, and you trust your spouse more have more time and opportunities with your spouse. You talk to your spouse more than anyone else and learn and explore new ideas with them as well.

3. Physical and Financial Stability - Two people working or one working the other taking care of the house either way, money is earned, the house, kids, and food is clean. Sex is safe because if you get pregnant they are legally obligated to support the child (and don't have to get a court order or take any tests). Sex is also safer in that STIs are controlled, if one partner already has an STI it can be managed, if neither have STIs then there is very little chance that they will get one if they only have sex with one another. 

4. Progression - Learning, growing, and even having children (if you look at it in a certain light) fall under progression and certain progress can only be made in a relationship. Your best traits are brought out when your partner has created a need for them; your worst traits are brought to your attention as well and the desire(need) to correct them is there if you want to keep the relationship.

5. Decision Making Support - Now that your decisions no longer affect you and only you, you can get input from your spouse and even defer certain decisions to them. Having someone else who is a legally invested stakeholder in your life gives you an anchor on which to make plans and decide on a course of action.

6. Release of Stress - Doing exciting things together can relieve stress and help you forget about your troubles. Having someone to listen to you who understands you can also relieve stress.

7. Attaining Purpose - When you are alone it is easy to get caught up into thinking you are merely treading water in life and that your actions don't necessarily affect the people around you. When you have a spouse everything you do for or to yourself affects your spouse. Being married gives you a reason to keep on living, and making your marriage work and worthwhile is what you strive for every day. That is your purpose. 

A successful, Modern Marriage provides:

1. Peace - Makes you feel at peace in a turbulent world. (Try being alone and you'll understand)

2. Happiness - Being married brings you greater happiness

3. Love - Your spouse makes you feel loved, and gives you someone to love back unconditionally.

It consists of:

1. Friendship

2. Trust

3. Intimacy

4. Respect

In order for a Modern Marriage to be successful it has to have:

1. Capitalization (of good moments) - When one spouse has success or a good moment, the other capitalizes on that to make it even greater. One form of this is Emotional Support. Capitalization can also include being happy simply because the other person is successful--a happiness as though you yourself were successful.

2. Excitement - Doing exciting things together, discovering new things, exploring the world and life.

3. Acknowledgment - Each spouse expressing that they know and care that the other exists. 

4. Acceptance - Regardless of personal opinion or what happens, neither spouse casts judgments on the other, but instead attempts to understand their motives. You do not have to agree with everything they say, nor do the things they would do in any given situation, but you do have to accept their opinions and decisions as their own opinions and decisions and respect the differences between the two of you.

5. Appreciation - Each spouse gives and recieves appreciation on a regular basis.

6. Needs Fulfillment - Physical, Mental, Emotional, and even Spiritual needs need to be met before the relationship will succeed. This is basic hierarchy of needs concepts--if you're not having sex and you want it, it WILL cause a strain on your marriage, or if your spouse is bawling because her coworkers were mean to her at work, it WILL affect your marriage. Resolving the needs that are your responsibility and allowing the other person to resolve needs they are responsible for is crucial to a good marriage. 

 The Successful Modern Marriage does the following:

1. Preserves Tradition - What holidays do you celebrate? What manerisms do you carry over from previous generations?

2. Preserves Wealth - When either or both spouses die, who will get the money and how will it be divided? 

3. Provides Physical Protection - Survival (food, shelter, etc), Sexual Protection (as mentioned above), Actual physical protection (if someone or something were to harm you), and protection to any offspring.

4. Provides Emotional Protection - A safe place from embarassment, a safe place to hide, or cry, or get excited.

5. Provides Social Protection - Two are more powerful against a mob than one. While together society doesn't judge as harshly a married couple as they do unmarried couples.

6. Preserves Social Status - A widow retains the respect his or her spouse earned whereas the secret lover does not.

7. Preserves Knowledge - "Trade secrets" or even personal secrets that we as humans feel we need to share with someone yet we can't share with just anyone--definitely not anyone outside your immediate family.

Above all a Modern Marriage is agreed upon. A modern marriage doesn't have to have a formal ceremony (though if you want it to be legal you do have to sign a piece of paper and vocalize it before an authority figure), but does have to be agreed upon by both parties. Whatever you want your marriage to do, you both have to genuinely want to accomplish the same objectives with your marriage. These days it doesn't matter if you are getting married solely for money and financial stability. It doesn't matter if you're getting married so that you can progress or share secrets or any number of things. It doesn't have to last until you die, you can agree to be married until you decide not to be together, but you both have to agree to the same terms. Marriage today is less formal than a hundred years ago but more formal than a few hundred years ago (back when a handshake constituted a marriage agreement). It is more useful than marriage previously because it can be customized to any combination of people. And it isn't any more or less stable than any other form of marriage. It is whatever two people make it.    

I have made this article easy for you, next time you or someone else asks the following questions, just refer to their respective section above:

What does a modern marriage offer?

What does a modern marriage need to have to succeed?

What does a modern marriage provide?

What does a modern marriage consist of?

What does a modern marriage do?

What is a modern marriage?

Click here for Part 3

Modern Marriage: Part 1

In each age, mankind has shaped the institution of marriage to fit the purposes of the times; and it is time for us to recognize the purpose of modern marriage. Marriage has seen an evolution throughout the ages. Each reincarnation of marriage has proven to be better than the last. Unfortunately, since we are in the early stages of this development, not all marriages fit the correct pattern for this time-period and we may never see 100% of marriages fit the pattern, but there is a very apparent formula for the modern marriage and the success of any couple, in this age, forming this institution depends on it.

\\\\\\\\\\\\PART ONE: EVOLUTION OF MARRIAGE\\\\\\\\\

When men were still living in caves, marriage was an assertion of power. It protected and promoted the development of offspring. Being joined together, living together as man and woman, meant that the best genetics were being used to create offspring. It also meant that offspring were protected at all times by one parent while the other was searching for food and shelter and it became a manifestation of power among the cave people. If another cave man or woman were capable of having intercourse with another cave person's mate, he would be seen as more powerful. 

Eventually, the custom of marriage became a form of entitlement. Great family lines were established by formal marriage. If you were born in that household or married into it, you would be entitled to the respect designated to that household. Records were kept of marriages in order to prove who was part of that house and who was not. Family sticks together, and if you upset one member of the household he can easily enlist the help of his brothers and sisters, parents and cousins to get revenge. 

Households quickly became a means for preserving not only social status but wealth as well and then tradition. If your household became wealthy, when you died your offspring received whatever you could not take with you from this life. If you were constructive enough, you could even pass traditions down for generations. Religions were established by households as a macro-political effort to boost a household's power (sorry, not the other around). Biblicly, the Levites were given charge over all religious rules and social laws. In egypt, the priests were given political powers along with social powers, and typically priests were born not raised from outside. Social classes were established to govern the rules behind who could marry who and why.

Jump forward several hundred years to Tudor England and you see that the marriage went through another reincarnation: it was too confining. If the king couldn't have a child with his wife he couldn't have an heir to the thrown, so he attempted to get a divorce. Marriage for a king can be explained as simply as a contract between a man in power who agrees to offer his wife and her offspring with all of her desires so long as she provides the king with an heir. Many kings and queens throughout ages even had affairs to meet their sexual desires and it was not always frowned upon. 

With divorce and greater freedom among common peoples brought the notion (finally) to marry for love. Bards, including Shakespeare himself, presented the idea that one can and should marry for love--marry someone who they want to be married to rather than someone they have to marry in order to survive. Previously in Europe, if they weren't wealthy, they were forced into quasi-arranged marriages, a young poor girl to a "respectable" man with property. Studying Shakespeare's works you can see that these arranged marriages had their problems and society's response was that the man was either cuckled or tamed his wife violently. (Dear female feminists, please realize that this was the reason my sex has mistreated you for hundreds of years.)

In Puritan America, marriage became, yet again, a rigid institution without divorce and furthered the above gender roles (taming and cuckling). But America brought further freedom to marry or not marry whomever one chose. It opened the doors for the mixing of social classes--for there were new social classes and anyone could marry anyone so long as they  brought their spouse into their social class with them (whether up or down). Though geographically centered in America, the ideas they brought forth spread across the globe.

It quickly became the norm for married couples to help one another remain faithful and to assist in progression. Though the gender roles created differences, men helped their wives in educating (or not educating them if he thought it was more important) and women assisted in the care taking of their husbands. 

Eventually, in Utah, (though this isn't new, guys, come one) plural marriage was established under the explanation that it allowed for the care taking of elderly, widowed women who society was neglecting. I point this out so that you can see that marriage has always changed based on necessity. It isn't rigid, it's very fluid. Depending on the circumstances of the time the institution of marriage may change slightly to meet a need of an individual (such as a king or minority) or a society as a whole. As another example, elsewhere in the world, and for a very long time, there was a bartering aspect to marriage--women were the domestic workers, whether wife or daughter, and losing one meant a loss to the man of the house. To compensate, the groom was required to pay a dowry to make up for the difference. Most people don't do this today because there is no need. Daughters aren't expected to be domestic workers, and daughters have the freedom to walk out of the house at any time if they choose.

So that leads us up to the pre-modern time period...

Since the '50s and '60s America saw a major increase in the divorce rate. Among the military especially it became so high that it became a burden and the government instituted a law that denied a couple from divorcing while one spouse was on active duty. The significance of this increasing divorce rate is that men and women are comfortable breaking up a marriage at any time and for any reason, previously they were required to show proof of infidelity. 

Entering and leaving marriage due to unhappiness or dislike has both, planted the fear of getting married, and the disgust of ever getting married, into the minds of later generations. It is becoming more common for people to say they never intend to marry, and it is also common for people to approach marriage with skepticism and mistrust and to request a prenuptial agreement. Prenuptial agreements were non-existent or incredibly rare even a hundred years ago, let alone a thousand. 

The most recent conflict to put our thoughts on marriage into perspective is the push to allow gay marriage--marriage between two people of the same sex. We finally have something to make us stop and think about our beloved institution rather than blindly bumble through it and suffer because of it. I find it interesting that it is not the divorce rate that provokes us to think, but the possibility of other people being married--one of these affects us directly, the other only affects us indirectly based on our thoughts and perceptions of it.

As a society we are not quite into the mature stage of the modern marriage. Not everyone has embraced modern methods, in fact not even a majority of people have. Most people are still stuck in old ways of thinking. Some still think like the cavemen--that who you marry makes you look more powerful. Others follow the Tudorian approach and believe marriage is for getting offspring. With so many different types of marriages, it is no wonder that few people come to the correct conclusions about what marriage is all about in the modern world. So what is the modern marriage?

Read Part two to find out!

Mankind's Slow Evolution

I have been reading several books lately on interpersonal communication and conflict--newer books--The Guide to Compassionate Assertiveness (2012), The Triangle of Truth (2011), Conscious Communication (2010), Breaking the Argument Cycle (2009), and How to Hug a Porcupine (2009). 
These books Should be the latest and greatest knowledge on communication, yet I am under the impression that most of these books are complete garbage.

Conscious Communication seems to be the best book I have ever read on interpersonal communication. I think it comes closest to reality and the "truth" as Plato would put it. In one section of this book, Miles Sherts begins to touch on the evolution process of man and my mind began to mix with his thoughts and I think I completely understand where he is going with this thought:

One of the things that separate us from Animals is that we have the ability to create complex noises to communicate with one another and formulate sentences; we also have the ability to think about thinking--which supposedly animals cannot. Most importantly, we have the ability to recognize our feelings and to name them. We can assess ourselves and determine: I am sad right now, I am happy, I am grateful, I am distraught, I am angry.

Yet even though we can create complex sounds and communicate how we are feeling--we haven't advanced very far in this field as a human race. 

Most of us communicate logically rather than emotionally. We make assumptions and treat them as facts. When someone does something that hurts us, we say "You are a bad person" and we live on the assumption that that person is out to get us, out to hurt us, out to dishonor our families and circumvent our lives. It is the simple: "Because of this, therefore this." Logic. That's what that is. But that's now how logic is supposed to be used, because it isn't an avenue to the truth.

Rhetorical tools, Logic, Ethos, Pathos, Kairos--these are supposed to bring us closer to the truth, not theory. They are supposed to bring about good in the world, not fear. They are supposed to help you learn or teach, rather than narrow your mind to new ideas.

The thing I have learned from my recent studies has been that the NEW avenue of evolution--the area in which we humans NEED to evolve in order to survive, the area in which we have been fighting generationally to overcome this and unfortunately it has been a slow process can be explained as follows:

We have found a way to gather resources so that all of our physical needs are easily taken care of, but our emotional needs, because of society and the culture required to reach this level of human advancement, have taken a back seat. Instead of addressing emotional needs we focus on physical needs as the means to an end, but it doesn't help to heal emotional wounds.
We run away from emotional pain or blame others because of 'logical' associations we make between other people and our emotional pain. Because our emotional needs aren't met and more importantly, because we don't know how to address or resolve emotional wounds, we sever relationships, we lash back, and we "fight" to survive.
But emotional pain isn't like physical pain. We don't need to fight for our emotional well being like we do for our physical well being. Gaining possessions, securing more resources of food and water, these might help us resolve our physical well-being, but our emotional well being isn't resolved by securing more relationships. If you don't resolve your emotional needs, having more relationships will only bring more opportunities for conflict and can ultimately lead to you pushing away your relationships or hurting other people and making your emotional pain even worse because the closer people are to you the more likely they are to bring out your emotional wounds.

As a society, but more importantly as individuals, we need to focus on resolving our emotional needs ourselves and being more compassionate to others who are suffering emotional pain. But before we can do that, we need to evolve so that we can recognize emotional pain--in ourselves and in others. And then we need to learn how to resolve emotional pain, because emotional pain can be triggered by other people, but resolving that emotional pain is an individual process in which we might rely on the support of others but ultimately must make the journey ourselves in the confines of our own minds.

You shouldn't walk away from other people simply because they trigger emotional pain in you, just like you shouldn't blame the fire for burning you.

Everybody got their problems

99 Problems

This song doesn't fit 100% but here goes...

Why is it that people blame others for their problems? I'm not talking about when clearly something is their problem but they blame it on other people, like when someone gets in a wreck and blames it on the idiot they crashed into, I'm talking about when people get offended. I'm talking about when people are annoyed. I'm talking about when people fight over things and jihad and crusade. I'm talking about when people get something stuck in their head that they believe so strongly that they can't see the other side.

And I'm guilty of it too.

It is human nature to be one sided--it's how the mind works, it's how we sleep at night. It's because our minds try so hard to make sense of this life and if we don't understand something we compartmentalize it under some other umbrella so that we don't have to think about it. We only see what we see, and that doesn't mean it's the truth. It's just perspective.

But people base their whole lives on their perspective--and how else can they? We are the product of our experiences, and our experiences are biased by our perspective.

So, I suppose I'm not really talking about blaming others for one's problems, I'm talking about hypocrisy. People look at their perspective and they see things they can't understand and they compartmentalize them in some category that makes sense to them. They look at differences in opinion as right and wrong; differences in actions as acceptable or unacceptable behavior; and they let other people's methods of thought or action affect them positively or negatively.

People are always under the assumption that society is following the same rules as they are, the truth is that there are very few rules that have been universalized among society. People think society governs sexual conduct, ethical conduct, and they assume that we live in society and follow mores and norms because they provide us with safety and resources. But a society is really just a collection of people, each with a different perspective.

The assumption is that by living in a society there will be greater good for oneself than living outside of that society; what people fail to recognize is that there is greater bad by living in society as well. Instead of choosing to be even-keel, a member of society chooses to have higher highs and lower lows.

I'm not talking about society in general, though this applies to them as well, what I'm referring to is smaller sub-groups of society. Churches, cities, corporations, families, race communities, gangs, etc.--anywhere that people come together. Parents take on a burden for their kids, church leaders go out of their way to help their members, corporations pay the managers more than they employees and shareholders reap the profits even though they barely work at all.
You hear stories about parents complaining about their kids because they put effort into them and are disappointed by them. You hear church leaders frustration with their flocks at not following the principles they teach, you hear shareholders complaining about the poor work of their company employees; and yet none of this is related. It's all in perspective. The kids don't see life as an adult--they haven't lived long enough. The church members pick and choose their ethics because they don't know any better or because their perspective is such that they don't care. The employees and managers of companies make decisions in the moment that effect the future.

Is society doomed? No. Because society has operated this way since the dawn of man and it will continue to operate this way forever. There are good parts, even great perks to being in society, but nothing is free. And if you know how to take advantage of the system, you can see great things from being in society and diminish  your own loses--thereby limiting risk--but it always comes at a price.

People see others as the problem when they themselves are the problem. Not because they blame their problems on other people, but because they lack knowledge, they lack skill, they lack ability, and most importantly, they are trapped in their perspective.

By my perspective, everyone would confront problems in their relationships and discuss them in an environment where both parties agree to not take offence by what is said and both parties agree to act cool headed and not purposely say or do things to hurt the other party. But not everyone sees this as the best way to go. Some people see problems in relationships, conflict, as a negative thing, and they desire everyone to avoid it, not talk about it, keep cool headed, ignore it, and find a work around at whatever expense. Is one more correct than the other? No. They are just different.

The wise person walks through this world understanding two things: 1) that others don't see things the way that they do, and 2) understanding that we aren't meant to know the truth and therefore can't be more right than the next guy/girl.

I think one of the keys to this life is to simply understand, nothing more, nothing less.

Mankind's Greatest Problem

A fellow traveler throughout life once asked me what I thought "the biggest problem was with people." I sat for a moment and then said that the biggest problem with people (individuals and society) is that they don't forgive often enough. Everybody wants Justice. They want what's fair and they want at least an equal share of it. If someone does something to offend them, they want that person to suffer and they themselves to be blessed.
Eventually, the universe will balance itself out. Karma will turn right around and bite everyone who takes more of their share and it might even give more than a fair share to those who are offended. Those who get the worst out of life initially get the best out of life later, and those who have life easy struggle when they are older. But none of that matters really when it comes to people...

People are the catalyst of life. How you treat people is what matters most--the relationships you have and maintain are what is important, not what is just and fair. In the real world, justice and equality don't exist in the same breath as friendship, love and happiness. With people, there is no right and wrong, everything is just different. Some people do things one way, others do things another way, yet both are still living, still surviving. If doing things their way helps them accomplish their goals and find purpose in life, then let them do it. So long as they aren't knocking you down, it's alright that they step on your toes. This world is too big to take offence whenever someone rubs against you the wrong way.

There is something beautiful about being able to withstand other people's negative energy and transforming it into something neutral--or even something positive!

Typically, people's problem (individual's and society's biggest problem of not forgiving) comes down to a common scenario: one friend gets into an argument with another friend or lover or other relation, and they vow not to forgive or forget. They build up a long list of grievances and don't ever let go of the situation and they distance themselves from their friend.
The trouble is that the times when you need friends the most is in that moment when your friend disappoints you, upsets you, turns on you, offends you, hurts you, or otherwise influences you negatively; and in that moment, you've distanced yourself from your friend. In the moment that you harbor animosity between you and your friend and you create that distance between them, you lose your friend and you no longer have your friend to be with you during that, the worst, time.

Forgive people, let the universe balance itself out, life is to precious to lose a good friend.

Gross

Not everything grosses me out. Blood doesn't phase me. Most horrific sights don't phase me. I guess smells phase me a little if they are disgusting enough or associated with disgusting things. I used to think poop was abhorrid, but not so much anymore. Old, fermenting saliva though, that's a smell I definitely do not like, and the other day I had to experience it once more when I opened up the machinery of my sink's drain due to a clog. yuck!

But among physical things, I'm not all that grossed out by very much. What gets me is human nature.

I recently began re-reading the novel Frankenstein for a class. I appreciated it the first time, but this time certain details have been brought to my attention that are conflicting within me. You see, Frankenstein is largely a feminists' story...a story about how "the men's world" is monstrous and to be abhorred--or so they claim. As I read the story again, I notice how Shelly is setting up the story in a way that tears down the cultural structure she lived in. --It isn't that I feel she had good reason to do so, because I believe in her time women were considered lesser beings to be subjected to the whims of men, but what I am conflicted about are HER reasons for doing so.

Let me just jump to the case, otherwise this article will be too lengthy, and without pointing fingers at specific people, because no matter how I put it, it is controversial:

Women will never be on the same intellectual, spiritual, emotional, or physical level that men are. --Now before you jump the gun and accuse me of being sexist, let me state something about men:

Men will never be on the same intellectual, spiritual, emotional, or physical level that women are.

How can that be? How can they both be that way? How can men and women NEVER cross paths?--Because they ARE men and women. We are different.

A comment was made today in class that "that's what women do...they give birth to women". What do men do? They do not hold the keys to life. Men go to war and bear the burdens of death--or they ought to.

My ethos may betray me, but I am under the experiences in life to say that women ought not enter man's world, just as men ought not enter women's world. And I don't mean to make a clash between definitions here. I mean to say that women are in the sentries of life. They are the guardians of all godly powers of procreation.

In my religion, there is a document that explains what the purpose and definition of a family is. In that document it explains some details about what the role of husbands and fathers are, as well as the role of women. Paraphrasing, it states that women are in charge of nourishing the family and children. It says little more than that about women, and yet it goes into quite a deal of depth about how men are to preside over the family, to ensure the proper material provisions, etc. etc., and then it states that men, too are to nourish the family and children. For quite some time in my life I have wondered why women would be given a charge over something that men were also meant to do, and that was the only thing they were to do. I believe very much in my religion and am under the understanding that this document is from God, and so the thought of questioning hasn't ever conquered my soul. But still (let me put yourself in my position), if God told you this, would you not wonder what the grand meaning of it was?

A week or so ago, I believe I have come to an understanding of the meaning of this, and it has only solidified my understanding of humanity and how a perfect society would exist. (That's what religion is all about isn't it? explaining how perfect society functions and seeks to work towards that perfection [heh, don't quote me on this, it's a thought provoking question])

In the perfect world, one which will one day encompass this earth, women WILL nourish the family. Not in an intellectual, cultural, emotional, physical, or spiritual sense, no. To nourish is "to strengthen, build up, or promote", to "sustain", or to "cherish, foster or keep alive". In the perfect world, women will be the guardians of relationships. They will protect and encourage the development of relationships. They will build a home where friendship, loving, bonding, respecting, and leading and following is permitted. For, without relationships, what are we as a human race? We are nothing. We have nothing if we are not connected in some way.

It took me quite a deal to realize this; but the more I look for evidence of it, there is a copious amount of evidence for this truth. What does Satan do that is one of the banes of women? He encourages them to gossip--to tear down relationships. He forces them to be timid, so that when dignity and honor and respect and love are on the line, they are too scared to permit it. He attacks their ability to give birth to God's spirit children, and when they lose their virginity in a bloody mess of disgust, not sanctioned by a committed relationship of marriage, he causes them to question the existence of true relationships.

To keep alive. Women are to devote their lives to keeping alive relationships, particularly the important ones.  If a person were to be dying--dying an emotional death in which they had no friends, no family, nothing. Would not the Samaritan woman rescue him?

Men, too, have a responsibility to nourish relationships, but in the perfect world, men will provide the bulk of the physical work--the work that brings in food and shelter and continued prosperity. This isn't to say that women won't work--relationships are formed by working together. What this DOES mean, is that men are to be the leaders. they are to preside. to be the head. And a good leader knows that his best employee is himself, he leads by example, he does what he can to reach the goals that he and his followers are trying to accomplish.
In a family, the man is to be a leader and the woman is to ensure that the relationships are fused tightly together. If either party fails to fulfill their purpose, then the whole structure crumbles, because a leader can only lead if the communication lines are in place so that his ethos supports following. If the son and the father are at odds with one another, the woman should step in to assist a tighter connection between them. Leaders never maintain their rule by themselves, but they require the help of others. The wife should help the husband.

Let me clarify something important: Women and Men CAN be equal, but they cannot be compatible if they are equal. What I mean is (insert some philosophy here) that if two people who were identical, except for their genders were to meet, they would not be compatible. They would likely be at odds with one another. They would not get along. This is because good relationships are formed when different people come together and bring their own pathos, ethos, and logos to the table. Opposites attract best because they balance each other out and create order. Two ends of a magnet repel one another because they are too similar.

So Mary Shelly brings up an interesting social ideal, but I do not buy into it. If I lived in her time I would fight against it, because I see now that what she wanted was a great social change. She wanted women to be on an equal plain as men were, yet their society was structured in a way that it was prosperous to the purpose of men and women. I largely believe that Shelly's argument is fallicious(sp?): what she is really at odds with is the intellect of man. Men of her day were stupid. They were pompous, they were arrogant, and to be such is no crime if they truly are what they say. But these men did not possess the wisdom to understand that women had a greater purpose that they were not permitting.

As I study this gross history of ours, I sometimes recognize where society got off track. I believe that these notions of equality in men and women are so off track now that our society has become worse in this area than it was back then. We were fools to stray from the system of Judges and families. And ever since we took our own path, we have ever been striving to fill in holes that 'our' system could never facilitate. This has made for a gross looking, odd smelling, complex machine.